Featured Posts

SitP: Heina Dadabhoy from Islam to Atheism. [caption id="attachment_2139" align="alignright" width="239"] A ninja warrior welcomes guests to Convergence/Skepchickcon[/caption]Boston Skeptics welcomes our January guest speaker, atheist feminist secular...

Read more

Book Club: The Emperor of All Maladies by Siddhartha... [caption id="attachment_2131" align="alignright" width="197"] The Emperor of All Maladies[/caption]This month's book is The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee, an oncologist...

Read more

SitP: David Ropeik and the Risk Perception Gap Update! Thanks to Andrea and Francois, we now have a video of David Ropeik's talk available on our

Read more

SitP: Larry Gilbertson on GMOs and Biotech [caption id="attachment_2117" align="alignright" width="300"] Feeding the world[/caption]The population of the earth will exceed 9 billion people by 2050. Arable land is decreasing, dietary preferences...

Read more

  • Prev
  • Next

Creationist Lecture in Boston on Sunday!

Posted on : Aug-14-2009 | By : Rebecca | In : Event

Tags:

8

Facebook Event Page Here

This Sunday, a Harvard phd will be delivering a talk called “Evolution: Bankrupt Science. Creationism: Science You Can Bank On” at 11AM and 7PM at the Longwood Galleria Conference Center.

This is a weekly church group hosting the talk. The Boston Atheists are attending the 7pm lecture, and the Boston Skeptics are also attending and/or distributing pro-evolution literature (plus perhaps literature explaining that evolution does not equal atheism).

Here’s the church’s event listing:
http://www.calvarychapelinthecity.com/index.php?page_id=2/

ALSO!

Prior to the lecture, many Boston Skeptics will be picnicking on Spectacle Island in the Boston Harbor Islands. We’ll take the 1pm ferry from Long Wharf (cheap and you can buy tickets online! ), snack, play games, maybe swim in the ocean, and head back by 4:30 or so. Everyone is invited!

Evite is here: http://tinyurl.com/twitnic

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments (8)

Damn it, I meant to go since I read about this in the Metro. Thanks for going in my place!

I hope I am not misquoting Dr. Jeanson, but I believe he said during the Q&A, “Evolution can be modified to fit new data so it is not really a scientific theory.” This seems rather surprising that as a newly minted Ph.D. he is not familiar with the scientific method.

It’s quite clear to me that he takes it as axiomatic that what the Christian Bible says is true and that it is completely correct in its eyewitness accounts, and from there he has to shoehorn the data that he gets to make it fit in with those axiomatic truths.

I was thinking that perhaps he was going to show something new, but it turned out to be mostly a rehash of what the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) has been saying for quite some time.

Basically his testimony was that in his study of the calcium ion regulatory process which involved levels of calcium ions in the blood, the thyroid gland, the liver, the kidneys and the colon that this constituted an irreducibly complex system. Any one piece failing causes the whole thing to fail. I find it interesting that he studied this in mice which I would think would be in a separate micro-evolutionary tree from the micro-evolutionary tree of humans. Why would God have made that same regulatory system very similar (or perhaps completely equivalent, I am not that familiar with it) in mice as in humans?

Some very good points were made from many people asking questions.

1. How come not all other cultures do not describe a world covering flood? I think his partial answer had to do with all the peoples of the world are descendents of Noah, so perhaps some of those other cultures forgot to write down what happened, but the people who wrote the Bible did get the accurate record.

2. There seemed to be some fundamental problems in his statistical comparison of the amino acid differences of a certain protein. Looked to me like his numbers would work just as well with an evolutionary explanation, then he made some comment about well if I added a lot more animals to the chart it would look obvious. Well why didn’t you do that?

3. There was a short discussion about the mind and how that relates to the human brain and there was an admission that there is some physical component to the mind involving the brain. Then the question was asked well how does God’s mind work without having a physical component. I don’t recall the exact answer, something about God being perfect and eternal.

4. Can creation science be demonstrated to be falsifiable? I think his answer was no, but then he said well neither can evolution, but he was first given a demonstation of finding a bunny fossil in the precambrian layer of geological rocks as a means of showing how evolution could be falsifiable.

There was also a slide about the earth (I’m supposing he meant the Milky Way galaxy) being at the center of the universe which I just found to be absurd…he simply was not competent to talk on that slide with any real knowledge.

There was an interesting question from someone whom I believe said he was a creationist and a christian who wanted to know about coevolution of females and males and how that could possibly be used to disprove evolution, but I don’t think Dr. Jeanson had any comment on that.

What was his PhD in?

“Coevolution of females and males” is such an incredibly stupid concept that there’s only one man who could have invented it, in the smallness of his creationist mind: Ray Comfort.

And he did.

Coevolution of females and males” is such an incredibly stupid concept that there’s only one man who could have invented it, in the smallness of his creationist mind: Ray Comfort.

And he did.

Ha!

I sent a description of the proceedings to PZ Myers; he was kind enough to post it on Pharyngula: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/a_first-hand_report_of_nathani.php

Andy has included a few things here that got by me.

Paul – his PhD is in Molecular Biology.

“‘Coevolution of females and males’ is such an incredibly stupid concept that there’s only one man who could have invented it, in the smallness of his creationist mind: Ray Comfort.”

It’s called an evolutionary arms race and it could only be used to support evolution. The argintine lake duck female evolved a corkscrew reproductive tract so they could more easily choose who they wanted to mate with. males in response evolved to have a corkscrew penis so they could more easily force a choosy female to mate with him.

This coevolution exists in humans too. males have a coronal ridge on their penis that was thought to be used as a semen remover (from previous lovers) in our ancestry. this evolved in response to females sleeping around. jealousy arguably evolved as an adaptive way to enforce monogamy – so are the hormones associated with what we consider “love.”

“Evolution can be modified to fit new data so it is not really a scientific theory.” This seems rather surprising that as a newly minted Ph.D. he is not familiar with the scientific method.”

Being he’s a creationist, you would say that anyway…Evolution needs something new because it’s falling apart…The BBC reported the discovery of a fossil squid with its ink sac still intact. A fossil that is supposedly 150 million years old. The animal resembles a modern-day squid. Finding an ink sac still intact indicates the animal is thousands of years old not millions. One would expect to find these things in nature as at confirms the creationist model. Now in evolution one doesn’t expect this, on the contrary, the theory needs something new, this is where one tries to fit the data into a model. It was funny how 1 in a billion was thrown out there without any real calculations.

Write a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.